Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
None of these points have anything to do with a conflict of interest. The conflict is present due to the dual representation structure we now have. As we attempt to regain the flying that we sold (I hope), we will be taking jobs from the regionals that ALPA also represents. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. If this same scenario was happening within a legal firm, that firm would recuse itself due to the obvious conflict.
Carl
Carl, we are ONE Bargaining Agent, with ONE Representational Structure. ALPA is ONE party to our management. As a result of this unity, conflicts are resolved before we come to the table with management.
Nothing prevents mainline from negotiating effective scope. In fact, in unity ALPA has the unique ability to coordinate among the major stakeholders. The problem has never been the mechanics of unity, the problem has been ALPA's unwillingness to embrace its greatest strength.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Sounds like you're setting up a circular argument so that they cannot succeed in your eyes. On the one hand you correctly point out important unity is. On the other hand you say that unity is impossible for DPA because it is a separatist movement. Are you saying that the only way to have unity is to ensure we stay with ALPA and reject any movement for change?
Carl
Correct. Moving out of ALPA harms unity and as such, the DPA is fatally flawed from its inception in my view.
We agree, ALPA is entirely responsible for its woes and it must be reformed. Without reform ALPA will continue down a path to decreasing power and irrelevance. The results of this diminished power will be diminished returns for ALPA members and increasing frustration. The DPA is a mile marker.
Effective leadership will push for the needed reforms. If they don't, the DPA (or something similar) will win a representational election.